Could postselection bias artificially amplify the repulsive signal in real experiments?

You've identified a genuine methodological vulnerability in repulsive-force experiments: postselection bias — where researchers unconsciously filter data to amplify signals — can artificially inflate effect sizes.

The archive contains a direct precedent. In particle physics "bump-hunt" searches, the practice of reporting the most significant excess found in an unspecified mass range introduces a greedy selection bias. The result is sobering: "an observed 3σ evidence probably has the rate over-estimated by of order 10% and the mass uncertainty underestimated by more like 20%" [AG-2025.06-1153]. This problem grows worse if multiple parameters (particle width, experimental resolution) are left unknown ahead of time, and can require hundreds of additional inverse femtobarn of data to confirm what looks like a discovery [AG-2025.06-1153].

The mechanism is simple: random background fluctuations occasionally spike above the true signal level. If you hunt through enough bins or parameter combinations without a pre-registered hypothesis, you will find peaks that vanish under scrutiny.

For repulsive propulsion claims specifically, analogous risks arise if:

• Researchers scan multiple frequency ranges, thrust directions, or power levels without pre-commitment to a single analysis.
• Outlier trials are excluded post hoc as "equipment malfunction" rather than noise.
• Significance thresholds are adjusted after seeing the data.

The same statistical machinery that corrects bump-hunt analyses — pre-registration, Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons, blinded analysis — is the standard remedy.

The provided preprints do not address postselection bias in propulsion experiments specifically.